A electron can exist in everywhere ?

  • Thread starter big_bounce
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Electron
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of an electron existing in multiple places at once according to quantum physics. However, it is clarified that the wavefunction of an electron is the mathematical formula used to predict its possible locations, and when measured, the electron is only observed in one spot. The nature of particles and their behavior as both waves and particles is also discussed, with the conclusion that the wavefunction is not a physical object and cannot be directly observed. The concept of reality and whether particles exist in all of their possible positions before detection is also debated.
  • #1
big_bounce
102
3
Hello all .
In quantum physics there are any theory that says a electron or Partial of electron exist in everywhere in universe ?
Means a electron in other side me can exist Partial of it in 300000 light year ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There's no such thing as a part of an electron, not according to the commonly accepted (textbook material) theories.
 
  • #3
The wave function of an electron can exist everywhere. But the observed position is just in one spot. The electric field from the electron also extends indefinitely far in its light cone.
 
  • #4
Quantum superposition states that a physical system, in your case an electron, exists in all of its possible configurations simultaneously. However, when observed or measured, the results of the measurement correspond to only one of the possible states.
 
  • #5
Particles being everywhere - is this a compelling reason to question that the world might be fake and not real?
 
  • #6
G-sound said:
Particles being everywhere - is this a compelling reason to question that the world might be fake and not real?

Not really, I don't really see the connection, lol :D
 
  • #7
Amok said:
Not really, I don't really see the connection, lol :D


Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.
 
  • #8
G-sound said:
Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.

The particles are not everywhere at once. The WAVEFUNCTION, which is a mathematical formula used to predict where the electron MIGHT be, says it has a range of locations. This does not mean that the electron will be in two places at once. If you interact with the electron, it will only be in one place at a time.
 
  • #9
Drakkith said:
The particles are not everywhere at once. The WAVEFUNCTION, which is a mathematical formula used to predict where the electron MIGHT be, says it has a range of locations. This does not mean that the electron will be in two places at once. If you interact with the electron, it will only be in one place at a time.
Aren't wavefunction and particle 2 aspects of the same thing?
 
  • #10
G-sound said:
Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.

So what you mean is that what we observe is actually not real, but some underlying world is?

G-sound said:
Aren't wavefunction and particle 2 aspects of the same thing?

No. A particle (or a group of particles) has a wavefunction. I think you're getting confused because people talk about wave-particle duality, wherein particles display both particule and wave behaviors. However, particles in quantum physics do not have the same meaning as in classical physics (very tiny solid objects) and a wavefunction isn't a classical wave either.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Amok said:
No. A particle (or a group of particles) has a wavefunction. I think you're getting confused because people talk about wave-particle duality, wherein particles display both particule and wave behaviors. However, particles in quantum physics do not have the same meaning as in classical physics (very tiny solid objects) and a wavefunction isn't a classical wave either.
Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.
 
  • #12
G-sound said:
Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.

No, I'm saying a particle (in the quantum sense of the word), can display both wave-like and particle-like behavior (in the classical sense of the word). A wavefunction is not a wave though.
 
  • #13
G-sound said:
Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.

He said nothing of the sort. The wave-like properties of an electron are because of the wavefunction. (Or rather, the wavefunction is because the electron has wave-like properties) But you cannot say that the particles is located everywhere that the wavefunction says it might be at, because when we measure it we only detect it in one place.
 
  • #14
You are both not addressing the question i raised.

"because when we measure it we only detect it in one place. " ...doesn't address the issue of whether particles and reality exist at all times and esp. before detection. The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions. Or if you argue that the wavefunction isn't real, then only detections are real(reality isn't real), which is the same answer just coming from the opposite direction.
 
  • #15
G-sound said:
The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions.

That's just not true.

Moreover, an electron can exist before you detect it, and it can be in a superposition of states, which doesn't necessarily mean that it 'exists several places at once'.

G-sound, bear in mind that we cannot measure or otherwise observe the wavefunction itself, it is not a physical object, it's a mathematical abstraction from which we can extract information about the current state a of a particle or system of particles.
 
  • #16
G-sound said:
You are both not addressing the question i raised.

"because when we measure it we only detect it in one place. " ...doesn't address the issue of whether particles and reality exist at all times and esp. before detection. The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions. Or if you argue that the wavefunction isn't real, then only detections are real(reality isn't real), which is the same answer just coming from the opposite direction.

This has nothing to do with "reality existing". No matter what our theory says it's obvious reality exists, even if we describe it incorrectly.

As to whether the particle itself exists everywhere at the same time is...complicated. First, we would need to decide what that even means. To date I don't believe anyone has been able to come up with an accepted interpretation of what the wavefunction means in a non-mathematical way.
 
  • #17
Amok said:
No, I'm saying a particle (in the quantum sense of the word), can display both wave-like and particle-like behavior (in the classical sense of the word). A wavefunction is not a wave though.


When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?
 
  • #18
Drakkith said:
This has nothing to do with "reality existing". No matter what our theory says it's obvious reality exists, even if we describe it incorrectly.
.
I'd say you are right that it exists though I am far less certain how and when it does.
 
  • #19
G-sound said:
When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?

That the particle obeys the mathematical laws developed by QM. That's it.
I'd say you are right that it exists though I am far less certain how and when it dose.

Please, leave ramblings on reality out of this thread. They don't pertain to the thread at all and only serve to confuse people.
 
  • #20
G-sound said:
When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?
It never acts (it is never seen, or measured to be) as if it were in many different states at once. That's one of the founding concepts of quantum mechanics. Whether the particle actually is in superposition of states when it is not observed is a question of philosophy. I still don't see how this has anything to do with the reality of our world, because that electron is still real, whether it is in a superposition of states or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Drakkith said:
That the particle obeys the mathematical laws developed by QM. That's it.


No, all physical laws should describe the world we observe. If they describe differently, then either the laws are wrong or the world we observe isn't quite the idea we have of it.
 
  • #22
Amok said:
It never acts (it is never seen, or measured to be) as if it were in many different states at once. That's one of the founding concepts of quantum mechanics. Whether the particle actually is in superposition of states when it is not observed is a question of philosophy. I still don't see how this has anything to do with the reality of our world, because that electron is still real, whether it is in a superposition of states or not.
Is a bacteria in superposition real? What about something even bigger? By 'real' do you mean just what is observed or do you also include things that are not? If the former, why did you even try to muddle the question i asked?
 
  • #23
G-sound said:
No, all physical laws should describe the world we observe.

And they do, quantum mechanics is a theory about what we observe, exclusively about that actually. No can observe electrons in a superposition of states, for example, and qm doesn't say you can.

G-sound said:
Is a bacteria in superposition real? What about something even bigger? By 'real' do you mean just what is observed or do you also include things that are not?

Bacteria aren't really described by quantum physics, as far as I know. I'm not saying that only things that we observe are real, and that things in superpositions aren't real. An electron is real whether it is in a superposition of states or not. Is the superposition itself ever real? No clue, no one knows.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Amok said:
And they do, quantum mechanics is a theory about what we observe, exclusively about that actually. No can observe electrons in a superposition of states, for example, and qm doesn't say you can.
As i said earlier, the wave nature of electrons is widely utilized these days. If it were just a mathematical trick, qm would reduce to classical mechanics. I think you might be confused that classical objects and quantum ones are similar.

PP. I'd say that people trying to prove objective reality solely on qm have already lost the battle.
 
  • #25
G-sound said:
As i said earlier, the wave nature of electrons is widely utilized these days. If it were just a mathematical trick, qm would reduce to classical mechanics. I think you might be confused that classical objects and quantum ones are similar.

I think you should look and see what superposition really is. No one here is saying that the wave nature of electrons doesn't exist or is a trick.

PP. I'd say that people trying to prove objective reality solely on qm have already lost the battle.

How so?
 
  • #26
Drakkith said:
I think you should look and see what superposition really is.
Tell me.
No one here is saying that the wave nature of electrons doesn't exist or is a trick.
Tell me what it is you are saying, not what you are not saying. You've beeen saying that reality is real because we obviously observe it(great argument) and because when you detect it, you've found it to exist(how surprizing). If the wave nature of electrons is real and exists as you suggest, electrons are not localized in spacetime and this violates known laws and principles of classical physics(as well as the notion of objective reality)
How so?

First look up the commonly established criteria for objective reality and compare them with qm. You might want to read a bit on qm before you start with the criteria though.
 
  • #27
G-sound said:
Tell me.

There are plenty of references online that a quick google search will provide. Have you read any of those? Have you read more than one source? If so, what questions do you have about it?

Tell me what it is you are saying, not what you are not saying. You've beeen saying that reality is real because we obviously observe it(great argument) and because when you detect it, you've found it to exist(how surprizing).

No, nothing about measuring the electron has been construed into being something about reality. Reality is, arguable, ill defined and not appropriate for discussion as such. What we HAVE been saying is that the wavefunction PREDICTS WHERE THE PARTICLE WILL BE. That's it. You've misconstrued that into saying "particles don't behave like waves". This is not true, as we've explained more than once.

If the wave nature of electrons is real and exists as you suggest, electrons are not localized in spacetime and this violates known laws and principles of classical physics(as well as the notion of objective reality)

They appear in one place, and ONLY one place whenever we interact with and detect them. QM says nothing about them "spreading out" over space. That is only the wavefunction, where they may appear next. As I've said already we have NO interpretation of what the wave function is, other than a mathematical tool, that is widely accepted as the "best" interpretation. As far as I know at least.

First look up the commonly established criteria for objective reality and compare them with qm. You might want to read a bit on qm before you start with the criteria though.

I'm not going to play this game. Either explain what you mean, or don't bother posting it.
 
  • #28
Drakkith said:
There are plenty of references online that a quick google search will provide. Have you read any of those? Have you read more than one source? If so, what questions do you have about it?
You said i had to learn more about superposition, now you are asking what i want to know about it?
No, nothing about measuring the electron has been construed into being something about reality. Reality is, arguable, ill defined and not appropriate for discussion as such. What we HAVE been saying is that the wavefunction PREDICTS WHERE THE PARTICLE WILL BE. That's it.
No, you are wrong. The wave nature is not just a mathematical trick for predicting where a particle might be. It's an aspect of what a particle is and a particle is actually both a wave and a particle. Diodes, transistors, electron microscopes... all use the wave aspect of electrons, so saying that its wave nature is just a calculational trick is just plain wrong.
You've misconstrued that into saying "particles don't behave like waves". This is not true, as we've explained more than once.
I've said no such thing.
They appear in one place, and ONLY one place whenever we interact with and detect them. QM says nothing about them "spreading out" over space.
Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, also the spreading out is part of nature and the basis of modern electronics. Furthermore, look for "devices that use qunatum mechanics" on google to get a better idea how much of a role the wave nature of particle plays these days.
I'm not going to play this game. Either explain what you mean, or don't bother posting it.

I'd use the reality criterion that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen chose for their attempt to prove qm was incomplete, that later turned against them with Bell/Aspect. It was a case of reductio ad absurdum on their side that to their dismay turned true.

Whether the wavefunction is real or not doesn't change the core of the argument - we have an excellent theory with verified predictions but the predictions go against common sense and preconceived notions that most people consider obvious and true - like chairs, tables, cats and moons...
 
  • #29
G-sound said:
No, you are wrong. The wave nature is not just a mathematical trick for predicting where a particle might be. It's an aspect of what a particle is and a particle is actually both a wave and a particle. Diodes, transistors, electron microscopes... all use the wave aspect of electrons, so saying that its wave nature is just a calculational trick is just plain wrong.

I give up. If you are going to take everything out of context, not listen, not put the effort into learning, and accuse us of saying things we haven't then I will have no more of this thread.
Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, also the spreading out is part of nature and the basis of modern electronics. Furthermore, look for "devices that use qunatum mechanics" on google to get a better idea how much of a role the wave nature of particle plays these days.

A perfect example of what I just said.
 
  • #30
I feel like he's trolling us. Repeating stuff he read somewhere else without understanding it.
 
  • #31
Amok said:
And they do, quantum mechanics is a theory about what we observe, exclusively about that actually. No can observe electrons in a superposition of states, for example, and qm doesn't say you can.



Bacteria aren't really described by quantum physics, as far as I know. I'm not saying that only things that we observe are real, and that things in superpositions aren't real. An electron is real whether it is in a superposition of states or not. Is the superposition itself ever real? No clue, no one knows.

This is highly incorrect.

Note that we observe and measure the consequences of superposition. The existence of bonding-antibonding in chemistry is one clear example! Furthermore, I've mentioned the Delft/Stony Brook SQUID experiments in this forum a gazillion times already. I'd like someone to tell me that the presence of the coherence gap that they measure is NOT due to such superposition. Or better yet, write a rebuttal to those two papers, if you will!

People seem to forget that when you make a measurement, what you have "collapsed" is only the information related to THAT OBSERVABLE! If another observable is non-commuting, you've done nothing to destroy the superposition of that observable! And this is what we can take advantage of in trying to detect such superposition, and this is what has been done in the numerous Schrodinger Cat-type experiments. Anyone can do a search on the 'net on these types of experiments before making such silly claim that we don't know if such superposition is real or not!

Zz.
 
  • #32
ZapperZ said:
The existence of bonding-antibonding in chemistry is one clear example!

How so?

ZapperZ said:
Furthermore, I've mentioned the Delft/Stony Brook SQUID experiments in this forum a gazillion times already. I'd like someone to tell me that the presence of the coherence gap that they measure is NOT due to such superposition. Or better yet, write a rebuttal to those two papers, if you will!

I'd never heard about that, but I'll check it out.
ZapperZ said:
you've done nothing to destroy the superposition of that observable!

Sure, but you haven't observed it either.
ZapperZ said:
And this is what we can take advantage of in trying to detect such superposition, and this is what has been done in the numerous Schrodinger Cat-type experiments. Anyone can do a search on the 'net on these types of experiments before making such silly claim that we don't know if such superposition is real or not!
Zz.

I'm sorry, no need to get all up in arms about it. I was taking an unassuming position to respond to a guy who was obviously rambling because wether or not superposition is real it has nothing to do with the existence of reality.
 
  • #33
big_bounce said:
Hello all .
In quantum physics there are any theory that says a electron or Partial of electron exist in everywhere in universe ?
Means a electron in other side me can exist Partial of it in 300000 light year ?

Now that we've established that we DO have such superposition in QM, and that it IS "real", let's tackle this annoying question brought up by the OP, who, BTW, never re-entered this thread after posting such a thing.

If an electron can exist everywhere simultaneously, then no particle accelerator in the universe can work, and neither can your electronics!

{Shock and confusion rings through the thread!}

"But ZapperZ! You just said that superposition is real, and so, doesn't this imply that you've just agreed that an electron can exist everywhere at the same time?"

And I will argue that in many instances, the electron can be describe as a classical particle and can easily be detected to be as that!

So what's the difference? One has to look at the scenario!

If I have a linear accelerator, let's say, and I created an electron at the gun at a certain time, I darn well have an electron that is NOT everywhere within the accelerator beamline! Why? Because I know well-enough when it is created and where! The very fact that I can detect it LATER down the beamline is the evidence. If it is everywhere all at once, I would detect it immediately at the end of the beamline. But I don't! So the insistence of an electron can exist everywhere is easily falsified by such an observation.

But why is this different than in the QM case?

If I have some way of generating an electron inside this beamline such that I have NO IDEA WHERE it will pop up at any given time (i.e. the only thing I know is that the probability of it appearing inside the walls of the beamline is zero), then NOW, I have a different situation/scenario than before. Now, the fact that I don't know when and where that electron will appear has changed the game entirely! The electron that appears in such a scenario can now be compared to, say, your infinite square well case in QM. You now have a QM case!

One cannot simply grab a QM principle, and then blindly apply it to every single scenario no matter how absurd it is. Leave such dubious practice to cranks who only learn about QM from pop-science sources.

Zz.
 
  • #34
Amok said:
How so?
I'd never heard about that, but I'll check it out.

Sure, but you haven't observed it either.

Define "observe".

I'm sorry, no need to get all up in arms about it. I was taking an unassuming position to respond to a guy who was obviously rambling because wether or not superposition is real it has nothing to do with the existence of reality. So take a chill pill.

Define "existence of reality". These are "mouthful" terms here. In physics, these things are well-defined. For example, the most recent results in looking for such "hidden variable" (which, btw, is quite related here) has found no such evidence. This means that the current version of quantum contextuality still holds true and has not been falsified!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4129344&postcount=155

Again, if you think that superposition isn't real after all of these numerous experiments and published papers, then I would love to hear you explain the physics of what they observed. And if you tell me that you've never heard them before (and it appears that you haven't), then you should not be so adamant in your argument that it isn't real because you obviously don't know enough do so!

Zz.
 
  • #35
ZapperZ said:
And if you tell me that you've never heard them before (and it appears that you haven't), then you should not adamant in your argument that it isn't real because you obviously don't know enough do so!

Honestly, I haven't heard of them. And I don't know what you mean by being "adamant", everyone is convinced of what they believe in until they aren't. And quite frankly, what you're defending is not exactly a widespread view (even if it might be correct), in fact if I google "Delft/Stony Brook SQUID experiments", the first hit I get is to a blog of yours and then to threads in these forums where you posted that stuff. And no one's ever heard or read everything there's to hear or read, so you can't really hold that against me.

Moreover, I didn't even say superposition isn't real ("adamant in your argument that it isn't real because you obviously don't know enough do so"), and it didn't really make any arguments for it. And I know that effects of superposition are visible, it's just I was never convinced that meant it was something real. And I'm sorry if I was wrong about, jeez...

So if you want to say something say it, but get off your high horse because no one likes arrogance.

You could've just posted a link to those articles and said "some scientists do think that superposition is real". And maybe explained it a bit.

Unfortunately I don't have access to journals right now, but I'll take a look those experiments when I do (next month).
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What do you mean by "a electron can exist in everywhere"?</h2><p>Electrons are subatomic particles that have properties of both particles and waves. According to quantum mechanics, there is a probability that an electron can exist in multiple places at the same time, known as its wave function. This means that an electron can exist in everywhere, but its exact location can only be determined through observation.</p><h2>2. How is it possible for an electron to exist in multiple places at once?</h2><p>This phenomenon is known as superposition, where a quantum object can exist in multiple states simultaneously. In the case of an electron, its wave function can spread out and occupy multiple positions in space, until it is observed or interacts with another particle.</p><h2>3. Can an electron be in two places at the same time?</h2><p>Yes, according to quantum mechanics, an electron can exist in multiple places at the same time. However, this does not mean that it is physically present in both places simultaneously. Rather, it exists as a probability wave until it is observed and its wave function collapses into a specific location.</p><h2>4. What is the significance of an electron being able to exist in everywhere?</h2><p>This concept challenges our understanding of the physical world and has important implications for technology. For example, the principles of quantum mechanics are used in the development of quantum computers, which can perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers.</p><h2>5. Is it possible to observe an electron existing in multiple places at once?</h2><p>No, it is not possible to directly observe an electron in superposition. As soon as it is observed, its wave function collapses and it is found in a specific location. However, scientists can indirectly observe the effects of superposition through experiments and measurements.</p>

1. What do you mean by "a electron can exist in everywhere"?

Electrons are subatomic particles that have properties of both particles and waves. According to quantum mechanics, there is a probability that an electron can exist in multiple places at the same time, known as its wave function. This means that an electron can exist in everywhere, but its exact location can only be determined through observation.

2. How is it possible for an electron to exist in multiple places at once?

This phenomenon is known as superposition, where a quantum object can exist in multiple states simultaneously. In the case of an electron, its wave function can spread out and occupy multiple positions in space, until it is observed or interacts with another particle.

3. Can an electron be in two places at the same time?

Yes, according to quantum mechanics, an electron can exist in multiple places at the same time. However, this does not mean that it is physically present in both places simultaneously. Rather, it exists as a probability wave until it is observed and its wave function collapses into a specific location.

4. What is the significance of an electron being able to exist in everywhere?

This concept challenges our understanding of the physical world and has important implications for technology. For example, the principles of quantum mechanics are used in the development of quantum computers, which can perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers.

5. Is it possible to observe an electron existing in multiple places at once?

No, it is not possible to directly observe an electron in superposition. As soon as it is observed, its wave function collapses and it is found in a specific location. However, scientists can indirectly observe the effects of superposition through experiments and measurements.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
838
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
4
Replies
124
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
735
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
776
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
938
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
834
Back
Top